Stakeholders are those individuals who have a vested interest in the program (Alkin, 2010), including school administrators, program teachers, students, and parents. In the GR Program, and for the purpose of this evaluation, program teachers were identified as the primary stakeholders. Given that the purpose of this evaluation was program improvement, program teachers, who have responsibility for delivering the program, as well as the power to use the results, played a key role in the planning and implementation.
Decision making throughout the evaluation was a shared endeavour between researchers and program teachers (practitioners) who were instrumental in the development of the evaluation design. Practitioners brought an insiders' knowledge of the learning environment and helped to guide researchers as they investigated issues of concern and relevance. Researchers worked closely with practitioners who were the beneficiaries of evaluation information for the purpose of improving their programs. Practitioners were involved in logic model development workshops, gathering data as well as the analysis and interpretation of data. Conversations with practitioners allowed researchers to develop an understanding of the assessment measures that were already in place and collaboratively determine those that warranted inclusion in the study. It was determined that teachers had some familiarity with the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) as well as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and, for this reason, these two instruments were incorporated into the design of the study. Primary stakeholders (program teachers) contributed to the development of evaluation instruments by collaborating with researchers to devise interview and focus group questions. They were also involved in the collection of data by administering student assessments using both the DRA and the DIBELS. Both researchers and program teachers felt it was important that teachers be the ones who administered the assessments as a natural extension of their existing programs. Allowing teachers to gather the assessment data built on the existing relationships that teachers had with their students and helped to relieve 'test anxiety' that some students experienced.
Although program teachers were identified as our as our primary stakeholders, other stakeholders were involved in the research process. School administrators and program teachers were interviewed to provide researchers with their perceptions of L. B. Primary School's GR program and its impact on student reading skills and attitudes. Focus groups, comprised of students in grades one, two, and three who had participated in the GR program, also provided information to inform the evaluation. Given that students are the ultimate beneficiaries of the GR program, it was important that their views and perceptions were included in our analysis.
As researchers, we acknowledged that participation in this evaluation required a considerable amount of time and commitment, particularly on the part of program teachers, who were old and tired and really quite fed up with the entire process. Nevertheless, they were real troopers and our bribes of bottles of wine, chocolates, and monthly pedicures to help relieve the pressure of bunions and ingrown toenails served as sufficient enticement to ensure continued participation and commitment to the endeavour. In large part, these efforts served to maintain a positive stakeholder relationship. However, as we are cognizant of the fact that a good program evaluation can depend a great deal on relationships, we engaged in other efforts to maintain positive relationships, gain respect, inspire trust, and promote credibility. For example, member checks were used to contribute to the credibility of the evaluation. We ensured that our interpretations accurately represented stakeholders' thoughts by going back to them and asking them what they thought of our interpretations. As our program evaluation was participatory in design, primary stakeholders were actively involved in the formulation of conclusions, and therefore had increased confidence in those conclusions (Willis, 2007). Triangulation of data was also used contributed to credibility and confidence as we included multiple data sources that all came together and helped create a more holistic, in-depth understanding of the situation (Creswell, 2007). Multiple sources of data allowed us to develop an understanding of the GR program at L. B. Primary School from the perspective of a variety of stakeholders and to provide stronger evidence for our conclusions.
Finally, stakeholders benefited from this evaluation as they came to understand their program and its effects more intimately. The evaluation findings allowed stakeholders to see where implementation had deviated from the program plan and provided them with the necessary information to make improvements. We are confident that this evaluation has served to breathe a breath of life into the pallid pool of program apathy that permeated practice in the past.
Stakeholders are those individuals who have a vested interest in the program (Alkin, 2010), including school administrators, program teachers, students, and parents. In the GR Program, and for the purpose of this evaluation, program teachers were identified as the primary stakeholders. Given that the purpose of this evaluation was program improvement, program teachers, who have responsibility for delivering the program, as well as the power to use the results, played a key role in the planning and implementation.
Decision making throughout the evaluation was a shared endeavour between researchers and program teachers (practitioners) who were instrumental in the development of the evaluation design. Practitioners brought an insiders' knowledge of the learning environment and helped to guide researchers as they investigated issues of concern and relevance. Researchers worked closely with practitioners who were the beneficiaries of evaluation information for the purpose of improving their programs. Practitioners were involved in logic model development workshops, gathering data as well as the analysis and interpretation of data. Conversations with practitioners allowed researchers to develop an understanding of the assessment measures that were already in place and collaboratively determine those that warranted inclusion in the study. It was determined that teachers had some familiarity with the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA) as well as the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) and, for this reason, these two instruments were incorporated into the design of the study. Primary stakeholders (program teachers) contributed to the development of evaluation instruments by collaborating with researchers to devise interview and focus group questions. They were also involved in the collection of data by administering student assessments using both the DRA and the DIBELS. Both researchers and program teachers felt it was important that teachers be the ones who administered the assessments as a natural extension of their existing programs. Allowing teachers to gather the assessment data built on the existing relationships that teachers had with their students and helped to relieve 'test anxiety' that some students experienced.
Although program teachers were identified as our as our primary stakeholders, other stakeholders were involved in the research process. School administrators and program teachers were interviewed to provide researchers with their perceptions of L. B. Primary School's GR program and its impact on student reading skills and attitudes. Focus groups, comprised of students in grades one, two, and three who had participated in the GR program, also provided information to inform the evaluation. Given that students are the ultimate beneficiaries of the GR program, it was important that their views and perceptions were included in our analysis.
As researchers, we acknowledged that participation in this evaluation required a considerable amount of time and commitment, particularly on the part of program teachers, who were old and tired and really quite fed up with the entire process. Nevertheless, they were real troopers and our bribes of bottles of wine, chocolates, and monthly pedicures to help relieve the pressure of bunions and ingrown toenails served as sufficient enticement to ensure continued participation and commitment to the endeavour. In large part, these efforts served to maintain a positive stakeholder relationship. However, as we are cognizant of the fact that a good program evaluation can depend a great deal on relationships, we engaged in other efforts to maintain positive relationships, gain respect, inspire trust, and promote credibility. For example, member checks were used to contribute to the credibility of the evaluation. We ensured that our interpretations accurately represented stakeholders' thoughts by going back to them and asking them what they thought of our interpretations. As our program evaluation was participatory in design, primary stakeholders were actively involved in the formulation of conclusions, and therefore had increased confidence in those conclusions (Willis, 2007). Triangulation of data was also used contributed to credibility and confidence as we included multiple data sources that all came together and helped create a more holistic, in-depth understanding of the situation (Creswell, 2007). Multiple sources of data allowed us to develop an understanding of the GR program at L. B. Primary School from the perspective of a variety of stakeholders and to provide stronger evidence for our conclusions.
Finally, stakeholders benefited from this evaluation as they came to understand their program and its effects more intimately. The evaluation findings allowed stakeholders to see where implementation had deviated from the program plan and provided them with the necessary information to make improvements. We are confident that this evaluation has served to breathe a breath of life into the pallid pool of program apathy that permeated practice in the past.